Pat @Pat@qoto.org

@freemo

Almost any use of the N-word is offensive. It's an epithet. By definition it is offensive.

Possibly the only exception is the way use just used it in a meta way and you couldn't use the alternate "N-word" because you were differentiating between two different forms of the word.

I don't have patience for racists.

@freemo @icedquinn @se7en

>"They were only on american soil for a short period"

They could try to arrest their charred bodies.

@freemo

>"Who was that?"

I just blocked "seven" because he used the N-word. I don't have time for that.

@freemo @icedquinn @se7en

>Now to be clear it is only during **invasion** or **rebellion**. So the war has to be on american soil in order to suspend the right. Which seems like a fair distinction.

Like the twin towers?

That was one (of many) problems with the war on terror, and perpetual war in general.

I just blocked a racist who used the N-word.

@Simpadoo @se7en @freemo

That was written long before the Civil War.

@freemo @se7en

I lot of folks who bring up Lincoln's use of HC after the southern states had left the US to go form a foreign country (the Confederacy), don't understand that his use of HC was actually constitutional (he used that loophole).

@freemo @se7en

>"The limitation on the federal govt to not be able to suspend habeus corpus is a restriction on the federal govt as well as the states."

Yes, but there's a loophole.

@se7en @freemo

Abe used Habeas corpus, he didn't suspend it. You're probably referring to the due process required when HC is used the gov. to bring people into custody.

Not sure what that has to vax though.

@freemo @se7en

Yes. Section 9 and 10 has some stuff in it limiting the states.

@freemo @se7en

There is no Article 10.

???

@se7en @freemo

Yes. My toot was mostly referring to what the document actually says, not what the Supremes and regulative agencies say it says.

@freemo @se7en

Yes, you're probably referring to Article IV. But my toot was already long enough. :)

@se7en @freemo

The joke was referring the Declaration of Independence.

Terrance, I'm sorry I don't understand your toot.

Freemo, The Constitution was written (originally) in a way that just listed what the powers of the branches of government are -- what they can do. The assumption was that anything else beyond those enumerated powers was prohibited to the federal government. (i.e., it was left up to the states to sort out in each of their constitutions and other laws.) The Constitution doesn't give the feds the power to force people to submit to any medical procedures, so they can't.

However, when the document was sent to the states for ratification, they balked and requested an explicit and specific restrictions on fed power. This became the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment specifically says that any power not granted to the feds (or prohibited to the states) "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now the question is: what does that mean? Does the power go to the states or the people?

The states have plenary power under the US Constitution which means that any power not mentioned goes to the states, and if a state constitution doesn't say anything about, then it belongs to the people.

But there are also explicit rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which have over time been "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment to restrict the states also.

Of those, "equal protection of the law", "due process of the law", "privileges and Immunities" (and "privileges or Immunities") are possibly applicable re forced vaxing. E.I. the feds can't, e.g., deny rights to people based on their vax status (but they can do things to protect others from those don't get vaxed, though.)

(Note: Due to the Slaughterhouse decisions a long time ago, the equal protection clause hasn't been the route the Supremes have taken historically.)

copying this to the local timeline...

A poster was criticizing COVID-19 vax policy and said, "Go back and read the founding documents of this country."

So I did. (nibble)

Yes. There it is. Right there in the old DOI:

“…He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has forced us to submit of the penetration to our flesh, the inoculant necessary to subdue the plague. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation…”

#TruthBeTold = A statement that is logically or literally true (or partly true), but seems to imply something that isn’t true or is just plain weird. (for rhetoric, logic or propaganda studies… or just for fun)
#TruthBeTold #history #DeclarationOfIndependence (#DOI) #USA #COVID19 #vax #vaccine

#abbreviation #Disambiguation

FYI

PLC = Pityriasis lichenoides chronica

(FYI = for your information)

#abbreviation #Disambiguation

@bluejay

#TruthBeTold #history #DeclarationOfIndependence #USA #COVID19 #vax #vaccine

Yes. There it is. Right there in the old DOI:

"...He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has forced us to submit of the penetration to our flesh, the inoculant necessary to subdue the plague. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation..."

----------
#TruthBeTold = A statement that is logically or literally true (or partly true), but seems to imply something that isn't true or is just plain weird. (for rhetoric, logic or propaganda studies... or just for fun)

@lucifargundam

I guess we're on the same page here. Your OP
(original post) didn't mention anything about citation in research papers, it sounded like it was making fun of people who use video media. I've never seen anybody cite Wikipedia in a published paper (although I've heard stories); that's a freshman mistake.

I cited a Wikipedia article today here on qoto in a toot. But that's completely different. We're just shooting the shit here, not performing science. A toot doesn't require that kind of rigor and if anybody wants to dig deeper the sources are there in the article.

(and that should be "whomever", not "whoever"; he said correcting his own grammar...)

@freemo

> "Even relatively insoluble salts will dissolve away in large quanties of water...."

I don't know enough about that specific design to know if that's the case or not. Some designs seal the molten salt in separate small containers fix the corrosion problem. And I'm not sure what that specific molten salt mixture wold do in seawater.

If that was a possibility, that the molten salt mixture with the fissionable fuel could become exposed to the open ocean in a way that would allow that material to spread in significant amounts, then yes, that would be a problem. That wouldn't work. But I don't know enough about the Danish design to know if that is the case or not.

The gold standard for nukes is fusion. But they can't seem to get it together enough to bring those into production. (Pun intended.)